| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT |
| Date: | 2009-10-26 16:25:24 |
| Message-ID: | 6800.1256574324@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Jaime Casanova
> <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>> to tell someone we no longer label our license as "simplified BSD" but
>> as MIT is, in the eyes and mind of users, changing the license... even
>> if the wording doesn't change...
> So what do you suggest? Burying our heads in the sand is not an option.
I'm of the opinion that we should continue to say that it's simplified
BSD. It's not our problem that Red Hat has chosen not to use that
terminology (which OSI uses, so it's not like there's no precedent).
Red Hat has an interest in minimizing the number of pigeonholes they
classify things into, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to care.
I quite agree with Jaime that starting to call ourselves MIT rather than
BSD would be a public-relations disaster.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-10-26 16:25:27 | Anonymous Code Blocks as Lambdas? |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-10-26 16:17:46 | Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT |